You're further failing to consider perspective. I.E. In your perspective stopping an abortion is harming the mother because the fetus isn't a "human being." In my perspective the mother, through abortion, is harming another human being - the unborn child. So from my perspective I am actually harming no one, contrary to your assertion.

You're further failing to consider perspective. I.E. In your perspective stopping an abortion is harming the mother because the fetus isn't a "human being." In my perspective the mother, through abortion, is harming another human being - the unborn child. So from my perspective I am actually harming no one, contrary to your assertion.

Then your perspective is simplistic bordering on the useless.

Forcing the woman to endure the unwanted hijacking of her bodies biological functions _is_ harming her. You would feel the same if someone broke into your house and dragged you off to be hooked up to act as a mandatory human dialysis machine for 9 months, regardless if anyone's life depended on your acquiescence.

Heck, we don't even force people to give blood, even though that's far less invasive, for a far shorter period of time, and would save any number of lives.

The fact that the life of a fetus depends on a mother's biological functions does not inherently remove those functions from her sovereignty.

Wow. It seems that you're intentionally choosing the most polarizing words possible. Hijacking?

(Delete, delete, delete. I'm not starting this whole argument over again. It would be a huge waste of my time to bother to say anything more because I would literally be talking to a brick wall. We don't agree and we never will so what is the point?)

Choose whatever word you like, the point is that the right to biological sovereignty trumps the fetus' dependence on those biological functions in any system that I would consider morally just. If you think you can actually argue against this fundamentally, give it your best shot.

I know who I'll go to when I need a new kidney, you won't even get to say no.

However, your primary point, that the mother is not 'harmed' is utterly and demonstrably false, so until you retract it, people will keep pointing it out to you.

You're further failing to consider perspective. I.E. In your perspective stopping an abortion is harming the mother because the fetus isn't a "human being." In my perspective the mother, through abortion, is harming another human being - the unborn child. So from my perspective I am actually harming no one, contrary to your assertion.

That's a one in a million instance. That's akin to using accidental death of minors due to firearms in the home as justification to ban all firearms.

No. This is akin to you saying that guns don't harm anyone, when they demonstrably do. An inability to have an abortion harms mothers. You can accept the harm you are causing while still considering it worth it, just as we accept the harm guns cause while still allowing people to own them.

Just have a modicum of intellectual honesty and own up to the harm you chose to cause.

You know what I espouse in the SoapBox and maybe a little in the VR/Boardroom and perhaps the Lounge. I doubt you know all that I post in all the fora so in that regards you don't even have a complete picture of that. And that you know naught of me IRL, your picture isn't even a picture at all.

I don't have to read your views of distributed fucking computing to know your character.

Quote:

You're further failing to consider perspective. I.E. In your perspective stopping an abortion is harming the mother because the fetus isn't a "human being." In my perspective the mother, through abortion, is harming another human being - the unborn child. So from my perspective I am actually harming no one, contrary to your assertion.

It doesn't even matter if the foetus is a "human being". The foetus necessarily harms the mother. The mother has an absolute right to stop that harm to herself, using lethal force if necessary.

Quote:

And lastly, you have no concrete basis from which to assert that yours is the "correct" position. Even if it is held by a majority, it can still be "wrong." Might, or the largest mob, certainly doesn't make right.

You're further failing to consider perspective. I.E. In your perspective stopping an abortion is harming the mother because the fetus isn't a "human being." In my perspective the mother, through abortion, is harming another human being - the unborn child. So from my perspective I am actually harming no one, contrary to your assertion.

A new bill up for vote in the state of Arizona would ban abortions for some expectant mothers, but that’s only the start of what lawmakers have in store. If the legislation passes, the state will consider a child to exist even before conception.

Under Arizona’s H.B. 2036, the state would recognize the start of the unborn child’s life to be the first day of its mother’s last menstrual period. The legislation is being proposed so that lawmakers can outlaw abortions on fetuses past the age of 20-weeks, but the verbiage its authors use to construct a time cycle for the baby would mean that the start of the child's life could very well occur up to two weeks before the mother and father even ponder procreating.On page eight of the proposed amendment to H.B. 2036, lawmakers lay out the “gestational age” of the child to be “calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” and from there, outlaws abortion “if the probable gestational age of [the] unborn child has been determined to be at least twenty weeks.”The architects of the amendment say that prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks — except in cases of medical emergency — is necessary for the safety of both mother and child. By designating a life to begin weeks before even possible, however, some critics are condemning Arizona lawmakers for looking for a way to involve itself in abortion matters before it can even become an issue.

“Certainly, they are trying move the gestational cutoff from what had been over the last two years a 20-week gestational cutoff to an 18-week gestational cutoff,” Guttmacher Institute’s State Issues Manager Elizabeth Nash tells Raw Story. “At the same time, they are trying to say, ‘Oh, this is a 20-week abortion ban.’ And they get away with that with the definition of gestational age that’s in the bill.”

“Considering that it’s anti-choice nuts we’re talking about, it’s safe to assume that they’d simply prefer a situation where all women of reproductive age are considered to be pregnant, on the grounds that they could be two weeks from now,” RH Reality Check’s Amanda Marcotte adds in a recently-penned editorial. “Better safe than sorry, especially if that mentality means you get to exert maximum control over the bodies of women of reproductive age.”

In extending her support for the legislation, however, sponsor Nancy Barto, a Republican senator representing the Phoenix, Arizona area says that fetuses are able to feel pain after the 20-week mark. Also favoring the proposal, Senator Steve Smith (R-Maricopa) adds that lawmakers also need to consider “the 50 million-plus children who have been killed” since the US Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v Wade.

"I would like to listen to the 50 million-plus children that have been aborted and killed since Roe v. Wade,'' the senator says."I would like to listen to what they think of this bill.''

Mother Jones adds in their own reporting, however, that while the law could be explained as an effort to deter complications that come from late-term abortions, opening up the window for the gestational age to begin before conception can hurt the parents in the long run. Essentially the act would outlaw abortion after 18 weeks, not 20 as the legislation claims, which could keep some concerned parents from making a decision about pregnancy before some medical procedures that gauge the health of the child are able to be determined. While some tests can be conducted soon after conception to catch potential life-threatening conditions and other impairments, outlawing abortions after the eighteenth week could keep parents from opting for abortion after other tests can be carried out (before the 20-week mark).

H.B. 2036 passed in the Arizona Senator by 20-to-10 and will soon go before the state’s House. To Raw Story, Elizabeth Nash says she believes the bill has a “very good chances of passage.”

Written on his hand was -When in doubt blame mainstream media -JOBS AND ECONOMY -Liberals lie conservatives never do.

Of course, their base will believe it. Republicans have been conditioned to believe everything they're told unflinchingly.

A friend brought out the "stop blaming Bush" card last weekend, so I asked him to never blame the media for anything ever again, upon which an epic WOOSH could be heard as he explained why the media is always to blame for everything..

A new bill up for vote in the state of Arizona would ban abortions for some expectant mothers, but that’s only the start of what lawmakers have in store. If the legislation passes, the state will consider a child to exist even before conception.

Under Arizona’s H.B. 2036, the state would recognize the start of the unborn child’s life to be the first day of its mother’s last menstrual period. The legislation is being proposed so that lawmakers can outlaw abortions on fetuses past the age of 20-weeks, but the verbiage its authors use to construct a time cycle for the baby would mean that the start of the child's life could very well occur up to two weeks before the mother and father even ponder procreating.On page eight of the proposed amendment to H.B. 2036, lawmakers lay out the “gestational age” of the child to be “calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” and from there, outlaws abortion “if the probable gestational age of [the] unborn child has been determined to be at least twenty weeks.”The architects of the amendment say that prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks — except in cases of medical emergency — is necessary for the safety of both mother and child. By designating a life to begin weeks before even possible, however, some critics are condemning Arizona lawmakers for looking for a way to involve itself in abortion matters before it can even become an issue.

“Certainly, they are trying move the gestational cutoff from what had been over the last two years a 20-week gestational cutoff to an 18-week gestational cutoff,” Guttmacher Institute’s State Issues Manager Elizabeth Nash tells Raw Story. “At the same time, they are trying to say, ‘Oh, this is a 20-week abortion ban.’ And they get away with that with the definition of gestational age that’s in the bill.”

“Considering that it’s anti-choice nuts we’re talking about, it’s safe to assume that they’d simply prefer a situation where all women of reproductive age are considered to be pregnant, on the grounds that they could be two weeks from now,” RH Reality Check’s Amanda Marcotte adds in a recently-penned editorial. “Better safe than sorry, especially if that mentality means you get to exert maximum control over the bodies of women of reproductive age.”

In extending her support for the legislation, however, sponsor Nancy Barto, a Republican senator representing the Phoenix, Arizona area says that fetuses are able to feel pain after the 20-week mark. Also favoring the proposal, Senator Steve Smith (R-Maricopa) adds that lawmakers also need to consider “the 50 million-plus children who have been killed” since the US Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v Wade.

"I would like to listen to the 50 million-plus children that have been aborted and killed since Roe v. Wade,'' the senator says."I would like to listen to what they think of this bill.''

Mother Jones adds in their own reporting, however, that while the law could be explained as an effort to deter complications that come from late-term abortions, opening up the window for the gestational age to begin before conception can hurt the parents in the long run. Essentially the act would outlaw abortion after 18 weeks, not 20 as the legislation claims, which could keep some concerned parents from making a decision about pregnancy before some medical procedures that gauge the health of the child are able to be determined. While some tests can be conducted soon after conception to catch potential life-threatening conditions and other impairments, outlawing abortions after the eighteenth week could keep parents from opting for abortion after other tests can be carried out (before the 20-week mark).

H.B. 2036 passed in the Arizona Senator by 20-to-10 and will soon go before the state’s House. To Raw Story, Elizabeth Nash says she believes the bill has a “very good chances of passage.”

The other implication of this is that any form of birth control that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg would now be considered an abortion. Goodbye hormones and IUDs.

That is the system preventing a doctor from helping people or patients to decide how to end suffering.

Abortion has beneficial reasons for selection. This is clearly one of them.

And as difficult as it is, I have to agree with you. The example given was cruelty towards the child and mother.

(That should answer Saint and N4M8- as well.)

Ozy wrote:

Choose whatever word you like, the point is that the right to biological sovereignty trumps the fetus' dependence on those biological functions in any system that I would consider morally just.

Thank you for clarifying that and framing it in terms of your moral preference.

Which is why I said that continuing this is pointless. You reject my moral stance as strongly as I reject yours. As neither of us can reasonably be expected to convince the other of the supremacy of our viewpoint there is no worth in continuing this line of discussion. Thus, my comment about brick wall is appropriate and it applies to both of us.

Which is why I said that continuing this is pointless. You reject my moral stance as strongly as I reject yours. As neither of us can reasonably be expected to convince the other of the supremacy of our viewpoint there is no worth in continuing this line of discussion. Thus, my comment about brick wall is appropriate and it applies to both of us.

With respect, there's room for sway here. I've seen it before, particularly on this topic.

"I would like to listen to the 50 million-plus children that have been aborted and killed since Roe v. Wade,'' the senator says."I would like to listen to what they think of this bill.''

And then he went on to say "but first I'd like a word from honest to god, real, not imaginary, people, who are dead because they didn't have UHC.". Wait a sec, no he didn't.

A nice option that is feasible, is to contact the parents of death row inmates and other prisoners who have committed heinous crimes and who were born before Row V Wade, and ask them permission to allow the Senator to write to their children and get opinions.

Increased access, education, and empowerment of women to utilize family planning from liberalized social roles, to birth control, to abortion has positive socio-economic effects across the world. Trying to roll these back, or reduce protection and expansion, is simply dangerous behavior from regressive people who want to stay in the cave.

Thank you for clarifying that and framing it in terms of your moral preference.

Which is why I said that continuing this is pointless. You reject my moral stance as strongly as I reject yours. As neither of us can reasonably be expected to convince the other of the supremacy of our viewpoint there is no worth in continuing this line of discussion. Thus, my comment about brick wall is appropriate and it applies to both of us.

Possibly, but are you actually sure that your moral position is consistent? That it actually is ok to infringe upon biological sovereignty if someone else's life depends on it?

Have you actually really thought through what this means with regard to people's rights?

Or is it only a fetus that somehow gets special treatment because of some 'quality'?

The architects of the amendment say that prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks — except in cases of medical emergency — is necessary for the safety of both mother and child.

This is very telling. You don't often see the spin and the reality juxtaposed in the same sentence. The authors recognize doctor determines what is or isn't safe -- they admit it right there in the bill with the exception. It's as much as admitting, "We're using the safety thing as a pretext, but we had to put in an exception for actual safety because it would be bad press if a mother-to-be died."

A fetus gets special preference because they could theoretically become a born-again Christian and thus are superior to the mother, who's obviously not because she's considering abortion.

I know that's not leavitron's actual position, but I couldn't resist.

In other news, @AZ nutcase, just think about how nasty your state would be with 50million more people for the social services to support.

The GOP is making this about abortion because there are people who agree with them on that (Leavitron, SS, et al). It's election year politics at its worst. I sincerely hope it backfires and the election landslides D, but I fear we as a country are too stupid to see past the handwaving to the malicious positions the GOP really supports.

I could also make a case that a mother is a citizen, tax payer, contributor to society, consumer of resources. She has a social security number, likely an address, and people who know and love her.

A fetus has none of these things, and won't actively contribute to society for years. In fact that only potential thing it has going for it over the mother is "innocence", which is often factored, but not actually a valuable trait.

The architects of the amendment say that prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks — except in cases of medical emergency — is necessary for the safety of both mother and child.

This is very telling. You don't often see the spin and the reality juxtaposed in the same sentence. The authors recognize doctor determines what is or isn't safe -- they admit it right there in the bill with the exception. It's as much as admitting, "We're using the safety thing as a pretext, but we had to put in an exception for actual safety because it would be bad press if a mother-to-be died."

I mean, really, who believes this shit?

Bold mine.Note that it says "both". Maybe they won't allow an exception for just the Mother or just the Child.Hey, our law makers have done dumber things.

While I'm fairly sure it won't make a lick of difference to point this out, but the common dating method for pregnancies is from the end of the previous menstrual period. This is because the date of conception is notoriously difficult to determine, meaning that a woman that has been pregnant for eighteen weeks is considered twenty weeks pregnant.

As such, this is probably the correct way to reference, this. In keeping with the spirit of the bill, however, the limit should have been increased to 22 weeks. The bullshit about "every woman in America is pregnant because she might be two weeks from now" is disingenuous on the part of the people who provided quotes for the article.

Which is why I said that continuing this is pointless. You reject my moral stance as strongly as I reject yours. As neither of us can reasonably be expected to convince the other of the supremacy of our viewpoint there is no worth in continuing this line of discussion. Thus, my comment about brick wall is appropriate and it applies to both of us.

Let's imagine that I need a kidney transplant, and that the only person in the whole world who's a good match is you. My continued life is entirely dependent on another, specific person--you--and for me to live requires you to suffer certain risks.

This is a situation closely analogous to the abortion one. The foetus has a specific dependency on the mother, and the foetus' existence comes at the detriment of the mother.

If the foetus has the right to infringe on the mother in this way, why do I not have a similar right to demand that you give me a kidney?

In other news, @AZ nutcase, just think about how nasty your state would be with 50million more people for the social services to support.

Don't be ridiculous.

1. Cut funding for all social services.2. Lower taxes for corporate persons.3. Deport or imprison all illegal immigrants brown people.4. Not-aborted fetuses grow up and do all the wonderful, high-paying jobs currently usurped by illegal immigrants brown people.

Which is why I said that continuing this is pointless. You reject my moral stance as strongly as I reject yours. As neither of us can reasonably be expected to convince the other of the supremacy of our viewpoint there is no worth in continuing this line of discussion. Thus, my comment about brick wall is appropriate and it applies to both of us.

Let's imagine that I need a kidney transplant, and that the only person in the whole world who's a good match is you. My continued life is entirely dependent on another, specific person--you--and for me to live requires you to suffer certain risks.

This is a situation closely analogous to the abortion one. The foetus has a specific dependency on the mother, and the foetus' existence comes at the detriment of the mother.

If the foetus has the right to infringe on the mother in this way, why do I not have a similar right to demand that you give me a kidney?

Which is why I said that continuing this is pointless. You reject my moral stance as strongly as I reject yours. As neither of us can reasonably be expected to convince the other of the supremacy of our viewpoint there is no worth in continuing this line of discussion. Thus, my comment about brick wall is appropriate and it applies to both of us.

Let's imagine that I need a kidney transplant, and that the only person in the whole world who's a good match is you. My continued life is entirely dependent on another, specific person--you--and for me to live requires you to suffer certain risks.

This is a situation closely analogous to the abortion one. The foetus has a specific dependency on the mother, and the foetus' existence comes at the detriment of the mother.

If the foetus has the right to infringe on the mother in this way, why do I not have a similar right to demand that you give me a kidney?

I'm trying to imagine an audience that would be swayed by this.

I'm trying to understand how the situations are even different.

Leavitron rejects the claim that the foetus is in some sense "not human". But that's beside the point: the mother's autonomy doesn't depend on its humanity. Even if he insists that the foetus is human, he must concede that so is the person in need of a new kidney. If he is to insist that a foetus has an explicit right to usurp the autonomy of the mother, he has to explain why the kidney recipient does not have a similar right. It's not at all clear to me.

I imagine it boils down to something along the lines of "It's OK to punish the mother and violate her rights, because it's her fault that she's pregnant. It's not my fault that your kidneys are broken." This is true, of course, but it would indicate that the antiabortion posture is fundamentally not about "rights"--it's about punishing behaviour that some people disapprove of.

Which is why I said that continuing this is pointless. You reject my moral stance as strongly as I reject yours. As neither of us can reasonably be expected to convince the other of the supremacy of our viewpoint there is no worth in continuing this line of discussion. Thus, my comment about brick wall is appropriate and it applies to both of us.

Let's imagine that I need a kidney transplant, and that the only person in the whole world who's a good match is you. My continued life is entirely dependent on another, specific person--you--and for me to live requires you to suffer certain risks.

This is a situation closely analogous to the abortion one. The foetus has a specific dependency on the mother, and the foetus' existence comes at the detriment of the mother.

If the foetus has the right to infringe on the mother in this way, why do I not have a similar right to demand that you give me a kidney?

I'm trying to imagine an audience that would be swayed by this.

I'm trying to understand how the situations are even different.

Leavitron rejects the claim that the foetus is in some sense "not human". But that's beside the point: the mother's autonomy doesn't depend on its humanity. Even if he insists that the foetus is human, he must concede that so is the person in need of a new kidney. If he is to insist that a foetus has an explicit right to usurp the autonomy of the mother, he has to explain why the kidney recipient does not have a similar right. It's not at all clear to me.

I imagine it boils down to something along the lines of "It's OK to punish the mother and violate her rights, because it's her fault that she's pregnant. It's not my fault that your kidneys are broken." This is true, of course, but it would indicate that the antiabortion posture is fundamentally not about "rights"--it's about punishing behaviour that some people disapprove of.

Abortion analogies are really, really tough since very little in life approximates pregnancy in any of the important metrics.

The closest I got was similar to the kidney argument, but instead of actually giving someone a kidney, you are pressed into service to be used as a human 'dialysis' machine, where you are forced to filter someone else's blood, 24/7 for 9 months. After that nine months, they would get a donor kidney, but they needed you to be their lifeline until that time.

I could actually see many people doing this for a close relative. But I don't think anyone believes that the law should require this of anyone.

“I find it offensive that the Democratic National Committee is using a term like that to describe policy differences,” said Sean Spicer, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. “It’s not only bad, but it’s downright pathetic they would use a term like ‘war’ when there are millions of Americans who actually have engaged in a real war. To use a term like that borders on unpatriotic.”

Which is why I said that continuing this is pointless. You reject my moral stance as strongly as I reject yours. As neither of us can reasonably be expected to convince the other of the supremacy of our viewpoint there is no worth in continuing this line of discussion. Thus, my comment about brick wall is appropriate and it applies to both of us.

Let's imagine that I need a kidney transplant, and that the only person in the whole world who's a good match is you. My continued life is entirely dependent on another, specific person--you--and for me to live requires you to suffer certain risks.

This is a situation closely analogous to the abortion one. The foetus has a specific dependency on the mother, and the foetus' existence comes at the detriment of the mother.

If the foetus has the right to infringe on the mother in this way, why do I not have a similar right to demand that you give me a kidney?

I'm trying to imagine an audience that would be swayed by this.

I'm trying to understand how the situations are even different.

Leavitron rejects the claim that the foetus is in some sense "not human". But that's beside the point: the mother's autonomy doesn't depend on its humanity. Even if he insists that the foetus is human, he must concede that so is the person in need of a new kidney. If he is to insist that a foetus has an explicit right to usurp the autonomy of the mother, he has to explain why the kidney recipient does not have a similar right. It's not at all clear to me.

I imagine it boils down to something along the lines of "It's OK to punish the mother and violate her rights, because it's her fault that she's pregnant. It's not my fault that your kidneys are broken." This is true, of course, but it would indicate that the antiabortion posture is fundamentally not about "rights"--it's about punishing behaviour that some people disapprove of.

Abortion analogies are really, really tough since very little in life approximates pregnancy in any of the important metrics.

The closest I got was similar to the kidney argument, but instead of actually giving someone a kidney, you are pressed into service to be used as a human 'dialysis' machine, where you are forced to filter someone else's blood, 24/7 for 9 months. After that nine months, they would get a donor kidney, but they needed you to be their lifeline until that time.

I could actually see many people doing this for a close relative. But I don't think anyone believes that the law should require this of anyone.

Well, yes. You're always free to not have an abortion, after all. It's the mandate--the insistence that you must provide essential life-support, to your own detriment, that is the problem. People can volunteer to do all sorts of things that are detrimental to their own existence. It's compulsion that's a problem.